SF Ocean Beach preservation plan to be shored up

This article was published on Friday March 4th, 2011 by Kelly Zito.

This picture shown to the right is an Erosion of Seaview Beach in New York. The repeated crashing of waves, throughout the year has caused erosion of the shoreline.

Summary:

Basically the article I read was about the erosion of beaches in San Francisco. The erosion of the beaches have caused roads by them to close down and are now being forced to try and preserve the beaches. The problem with this is that the East Coast doesn't have as much machinery to nourish or taking sand dredge from the Golden Gate shipping channel and then to dump it on the beaches. The erosion of these beaches is also forcing San Francisco to move their water utility inward because it pumps water and waste water plants at the beaches and drains and treats 150 million of gallons of water from the city's neighborhoods on a wet day. To move this, it would cost billions!

Opinion :

In my opinion, I feel as though as humans would could have saw the erosion of beaches happening years ago. If we saw this coming, then how come we didn't do anything to prevent it. I mean I understand where San Francisco is coming from with the East Coast having more knowledge and machinery to fix the beaches, but why haven't we come up with a plan to save the beaches. If we don't then eventually, they're all going to erode away and destroy cities and towns and roadways nearby.

Questions :

1. Why has it taken us so long to finally realize how the weather effects us now, rather than to take a jump start on the problem and find better solutions to fix it or work around it?

2. Are they also fixing beaches that most people don't use? What is the point of trying to improve something that no one has any interest in visiting to, it's just a waste of money in my opinion.

3. Where do the people who work for the companies that fix the beaches and the water in San Francisco get all this money from the fix them? To move their water utility inward is a lot of money and on top of that the machinery to fix the beaches must be a boat load to. Is there something these people are not telling us?

Site of Article : http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/03/04/MNGM1I1O92.DTL

Solar Still Makes Water Purification Easy

Pictured: The Eliodomestico, a simple invention for purifying water

Solar Still Makes Water Purification Easy, Works Like an Upside-down Coffee Maker
by, Alex Davies, treehugger.com, written on 10/26/11
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/10/eliodomestico-solar-house-still.php?campaign=th_rss

Summary of Article:
Availability and purity of water is an important issue all around the world. In third-world countries, finding clean water for drinking is a daily struggle. According to the article, half of humanity will be threatened by water shortage by 2030. Fortunately, people like Gabriele Diamanti are coming up with creative solutions. Diamanti invented a portable, inexpensive water purifier that doesn't require electricity. It's called the Eliodomestico and it works by using a special top that attracts maximum sunlight all day, purifying up to 5 liters of water a day. Gabriele also put his invention under a Creative Commons license allowing anyone to create and share one freely and legally.

Opinion/Reflection:
I think this purifier is an incredible invention. It seems to have no downsides; it's cheap, portable, effective, and available for anybody. I can relate to this article because of what we have been learning in class about water availability. While there is much water in the water, only a tiny portion is freshwater, and only a tiny portion of that is drinkable. Water availability in Africa and other poor areas of the world is a big issue, and I think this invention can do a lot to help.

Questions:
1. How can this invention be distributed in mass to Third World Countries?
2. What else can be done to help the water availability crisis?
3. What are some downsides to this invention?
4. Why isn't water availability a more discussed issue?

Celebrating River Conservation with Gorgeous Photos
by Jaymi Heimbuch, San Francisco, California on 10.21.11
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/10/national-geographic-boundless-rivers-highlights-conservation-efforts-brothers-john-and-frank-craighead.php?campaign=th_rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+treehuggersite+%28Treehugger%29&utm_content=Google+Reader



Picture: This picture shows the Allagash River. It is protected by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

Summary:
You hear about pollution all the time, yet you never really hear about how it is being solved. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act preserves certain rivers with outsanding natural and recreational values. It was signed into law in 1968 by President Lyndon Johnson. The act protects over 200 rivers. The rivers are in 39 states and in Puerto Rico. The act does allow for new rivers to be added. Even though 200 rivers seem like a lot of rivers to be protected, that is only 0.35% of all the US rivers.

Opinion/ Reflection:
There is not a big river in Hatboro that is protected. However, there is a creek in Hatboro that is used as a dumping ground. I believe that if the main rivers are anywhere near as bad as this it is an amazing thing to have a conservation act to protect rivers. We've seen how the watere cycle effects life and how much water we need to survive so I believe we should protect as much water as we can.

Questions:
1.) What else can we do to preserve rivers?
2.) What would be the effect on the environment if all the rivers were protected?
3.) If we do protect all the rivers, could it endanger any wildlife?
4.) If there is a way to protect more rivers, would it involve volunteers being forced to spend their time there or everyone to pay more money?

Major Corporations Contradict GOP By Profiting From Carbon Reduction Projects

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/09/major-corporations-contradict-gop-profiting-carbon-reductions.php

Summary:
This article is from treehugger.com, a popular environmental blog. The article is about how companies are beginning to invest in carbon reduction. For long, environments-saving organizations have been portrayed as "job-killers." The media often shows how environmental protection loses a lot of money. However, high-end companies are beginning to invest in carbon reduction without the incentive of government bonuses. They are beginning to realize that this actually increases efficiency and profit. Still, though, there are people who fight against carbon reduction in factories.

Opinion/Reflection:
I've always thought that factories should reduce carbon emissions. I realized that doing so would cost the organizations a lot of money, but it still seemed like the right thing to do. But now that companies have found that it actually increases profit, it seems like the only logical thing to do! It doesn't make sense that some corporations and politicians are still fighting against it.

Questions:
1: Why would a company not invest in carbon reduction?
2: Are there any unseen downsides?
3: Why are some politicians and lobbyists so adamant on making environmentalists look like bad people?

For sharks, A race to the fin-ish line? http://www.grist.org/food/2011-09-08-shark-fin-ban

The picture shown here is a shark without a fin, that was found dead on the ocean floor. The reason as to why sharks die without fins is because the sharks no longer have that "swimming motion" and therefor water is not passed through from their gills for oxygen and they die.

Summary:

The article I read was about how the California Senate had just recently "passed a legislation banning the possession, sale, or trade of shark fins." As the article states, about 73 million sharks are cut a year and their fins are cut off and they are sent back into the ocean to die. Some shark species are now to be considered endangered because of this act and so many are happy this law. Others are not as happy because they make their profits off of the shark fins. This ban can make an impact on California because they have two huge Asian fish markets in which shark fins are eaten here more than any other state. One said that they percent of shark fins caught and eaten by the community is small, as to where most of it is from abroad.

Opinion/Reflection :

I feel as though this issue should be brought up more in other countries or states besides California. Yes I know maybe some sharks people catch are baby sharks and are worth throwing back into the ocean to be dead, but don't they understand that they're doing harm to the community of the animals and also the population of them? It sickens me that humans are a cause of endangered animals because we don't think twice about things like these. We don't go into research about it, we act before we think.

Questions:

1)Why isn't shark fining brought up a lot in the media if it's such a big problem on the west coast?

2) What are the people that make profits off of the shark fins now going to do since this is now banned to even have possession of them?

3) Besides shark fining, are there any other major problems that us as humans cause to harm the sharks in general to decrease their population?

4) Are they going to eventually pass a law that restricts California from importing shark fins from out of country like Asia?

Nature and Animal Conservation http://www.globalissues.org/article/177/nature-and-animal-conservation

The article Nature and Animal conservation basically sums up animals around that world whose population is on the decline. The article mentions tigers, lions, rhinos, polar bears, vultures, penguins, amphibians, monkeys, apes, and other types of primates. Like most global problems have in common humans seem to have a part in this horrible crisis. Poaching and habitat loss are both human related and as the article states, "Tigers continue to face challenges imposed by poaching, retributive killings and habitat loss." we are yet again responsible. Of course there are other reasons for the declining of animals populations, but because of the fact that we are partially responsible it makes me disgusted. Another reason for animals dying is caused by pollution, which also lies in human hands. Animal conservation is becoming more important because of the fact that more animal species are being found. Animals we do not even know about can die off before we have the opportunity to study them because of our own actions. This needs to change and we need to do what we can to change the way animals lives are conserved.

Questions:

1. Right now, which animal is closest to extinction?

2. If this has been a problem in the world for so long, why haven't we been able to solve the problem. What problems failed and what haven't we tried yet.

3. What can we do as a school to help stop this crisis?